HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED BY BLACKS TODAY?..........THE LOOTING ACROSS AMERICA is as black as the staggering murder and crime rates of BLACKS ACROSS AMERICA. Black Lives Matter? NO LIFE MATTERS TO BLACKS!

“ The larger fear is that Obama
might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do
when they claim to be all for the common guy.” NEW YORK TIMES

Well, the banksters he works for don’t think
so! They caused a global depression, the life savings of millions of Americans,
and Obama and his harem of LA RAZA DEMS have handed them half the economy as
thanks. Now they’re staging a new show to convince they’re protecting our
borders from the Mexican drug cartel, even while they’re working up an
underhanded way of handing “free” healthcare for illegals so that even more hop
our borders and keep wages depressed for the LA RAZA DEMS’ paymasters.

The drugsters got hardons watching Obama
perform for criminal bankers, and they want theirs too, and OBAMA has promised
it!

Obama’s LA RAZA dems have been promised that
while Obama continues to lie about the people, he’s come up with some
interesting new angles to put 38 million Mexican flag waving illegals into our
jobs to depress wages even more.

Yes, we’re punked! Obama is nothing but a
calculated red-carpet addicted actor bent on extending the golden age of
CORPORATE RAPE AND PILLAGE under BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, BUSH.

Unemployment? Foreclosures? Mexican crime
waves? Hey, don’t talk like a socialist commie! There’s good money in socialism
for corporate criminals, war and war profiteer, like DIANNE FEINSTEIN, and they
know OBAMA will protect and put out good bonuses. ARE WE PUNKED BY THE GREATEST
CON JOB EVER?

He should know. Thursday was the
eighth anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the President’s
Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks
the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s strike on the Louisiana coast,
which his boss also ignored while on vacation in Crawford.

So do have a blast in Martha’s
Vineyard, President Obama.

Even as we wait for some unexpected
disaster to strike, Beltway omens for the current White House are grim. Obama’s
poll numbers are approaching free fall, we are
told. If he fails on health care, he’s toast. Indeed, many of the bloviators
who spot a fatal swoon in the Obama presidency are the same doomsayers who in
August 2008 were predicting his Election Day defeat because he couldn’t “close
the deal” and clear the 50 percent mark in matchups with John McCain.

Here are two not very daring
predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care reform done come fall. His
poll numbers will not crater any time soon.

Yet there is real reason for
longer-term worry in the form of a persistent, anecdotal drift toward
disillusionment among some of the president’s supporters. And not merely those
on the left. This concern was perhaps best articulated by an Obama voter, a
real estate agent in Virginia, featured on the front page of The
Washington Post last week. “Nothing’s changed for the common guy,” she said.
“I feel like I’ve been punked.” She cited in particular the billions of dollars
in bailouts given to banks that still “act like they’re broke.”

But this mood isn’t just about the
banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great Recession has crystallized is a
larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking
sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically
put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the
interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington
far too long.” He promised to smite them.

No president can do that alone, let
alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more quixotic, the ailment that he
diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics’ domain. What
disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost
everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful
hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime
concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

But the Democratic members of
Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their
ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As
Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry
groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to
the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy
Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.

In this maze of powerful moneyed
interests, it’s not clear who any American in either party should or could root
for. The bipartisan nature of the beast can be encapsulated by the remarkable
progress of Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman. Tauzin was a founding member of the Blue
Dog Democrats in 1994. A year later, he bolted to the Republicans. Now he is
chief of PhRMA, the biggest pharmaceutical trade group. In the 2008 campaign,
Obama ran a television ad pillorying Tauzin for his role in preventing Medicare
from negotiating for lower drug prices. Last week The Los Angeles Times reported — and The New York Times confirmed — that
Tauzin, an active player in White House health care negotiations, had secured a
behind-closed-doors flip-flop, enlisting the administration to push for
continued protection of drug prices. Now we know why the president has ducked
his campaign pledge to broadcast such negotiations on C-Span.

The making of legislative sausage is
never pretty. The White House has to give to get. But the cynicism being
whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose chief
presidential campaign strategist unapologetically did double duty as a
high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we could actually believe
in.

It’s in this context that Obama
can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled
Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of
those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have
been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to
metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or
doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the
system he sought the White House to reform.

The best political news for the
president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure of how out of touch G.O.P.
leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are that they keep trying to
scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have it backward. The larger fear is that Obama might be
just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they
claim to be all for the common guy. If anything, the most unexpected — and
challenging — event that could rock the White House this August would be if the
opposition actually woke up.

*

The Mexican occupation of 38 million
illegals depress wages $200 - $300 billion per year for Americans. These same
Americans are forced to pay the staggering welfare costs of the occupation as
well. Welfare paid to illegals in Mexican occupied Los Angeles, is nearly $40
MILLION PER MONTH. In Los Angeles, 47% of those employed are ILLEGALS.

US corporations squeezing more
output from workers and paying lower wages

By Patrick O’Connor
12 August 2009

US
Labor Department data released yesterday showed productivity up 6.4 percent in
the second quarter, the largest gain since 2003 and higher than economists’
forecasts of 5.5 percent. Over the same period, workers’ compensation fell
sharply.

The
Bureau of Labor Statistics explained that productivity—which measures hourly
output per employee—increased “due to hours worked declining faster than
output.”

In
other words, big business is using the rise in unemployment to extract greater
output from employed workers through speedup and other forms of intensified
exploitation.

Nonfarm
productivity rose 6.4 percent as a result of output declining by 1.7 percent
and total hours worked plummeting 7.6 percent.

Data
also showed that real hourly employee compensation fell by 1.1 percent in the
second quarter, or by 2.2 percent on an annualized basis. The combined impact
of declining wages and rising productivity brought unit labor costs down by a
huge 5.8 percent in the three months from April to June.

In
manufacturing, quarterly productivity rose 5.3 percent, a result of output
falling by 9.9 percent and hours by 14.4 percent. In the durable manufacturing
sub-category, the output and hours decline was even greater—16.5 percent and
19.6 percent respectively.

The
recent productivity boost, unlike that seen in previous periods, has involved
no developments in productive technique. Mark Vitner of Wells Fargo Bank told
Dow Jones Newswire that the second quarter gain “is almost entirely the result
of cost-cutting, not improved ways of producing goods and providing services.”

Several
commentators frankly admitted that the productivity boost was the product of
intensified pressure on the working class. In a comment for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch,
Tom Bernis wrote: “Anybody lucky enough to hang onto his or her job in this
recession is working flat out to keep it. That’s one take on the latest US
productivity numbers...

“The
severity of the recession has pushed the hours worked to levels not seen since
the mid-1990s, even as units of output have risen nearly 40 percent. So, with
the economy essentially in ‘idle,’ it takes far fewer workers to keep things
moving than nearly a decade-and-a-half ago. That’s good news for profits, but
not so good for the unemployed.”

BloombergNews highlighted
DuPont, the third-biggest US chemical company, which last month announced a
better-than-anticipated $417 million second quarter profit. This was achieved
after outlining a strategy to cut fixed costs by $1 billion, partly by laying
off 2,500 permanent workers and 10,000 contractors. “Our aggressive actions to
improve productivity and reduce costs across the company are paying off,” Chief
Executive Officer Ellen Kullman declared.

According
to Time magazine’s Justin Fox, a recent report by the Goldman Sachs
portfolio strategy team compared current corporate profits with previous
periods. In an extraordinary finding, the researchers concluded that if
financial companies, auto producers and utilities are excluded, corporations in
the S&P 500 index had higher profit margins during the worst of the current
crisis than they did during any point of the mid-1980s economic boom.

This
conclusion points to the class character of the Obama administration and the
social interests being served by its policies.

The
economic policies advanced by successive Democratic and Republican
administrations over the last three decades produced significant productivity
increases at the same time that average real wages stagnated or declined. This
led to an unprecedented shift in national income distribution, away from wages
towards corporate profits, massively increasing social inequality.

These
tendencies are accelerating, with the Obama administration, on behalf of the
major corporations and banks, advancing a sweeping economic restructuring
agenda aimed at permanently driving down workers’ wages and conditions. Every
aspect of the administration’s agenda—from the bailout of the banks, to mass
layoffs and wage and benefit concessions in the auto industry, to sweeping cuts
in health care for workers and retirees—is directed towards protecting the
ruling elite’s wealth at the expense of the majority of the population.

Obama
sent a clear signal to big business with the restructuring of the auto
industry. The federally supervised bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler
involved the destruction of large sections of each company’s productive
capacity, the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs, and the imposition of
wages and conditions equivalent to those last experienced in the industry in
the 1930s. This set the stage for an economy-wide corporate offensive against
jobs, wages, and conditions, the initial results of which are reflected in the
latest productivity and labor cost data.

*

ARE AMAZED AT HOW UTTERLY BRAZEN THESE CORPORATE OWNED
POLITICIANS ARE?

GET THIS BOOK!

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats,
Crooks, and Cronies

by Michelle Malkin

Editorial Reviews

In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records
of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and
abuses of power throughout his administration.

From the Inside Flap

The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six
months in office to kill it.

Never has an administration taken office with more inflated
expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American
Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative
tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a
powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption
that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty
crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of
Corruption, Malkin reveals:

* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and
Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing
the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their
relatives have benefited mightily

* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's
cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide

* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry,
unaccountable "czars" than any other administration

* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments
became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be
appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons

* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered
millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand
their power

* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists
are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption,
Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the
liberal media would rather keep hidden.

Unfortunately the corruption of these politicians noted is
only a drop in the bucket of what they’re guilty of.

One common ground for all of them is they will all protect
and cover each other’s crimes.

1. SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON D-NY): In addition to her long
and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 –
and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records.
Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to
her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007,
Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing
false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s
top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive
from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft for
defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

*

CLINTON IS A MAJOR LA RAZA SUPPORTER AND ADVANCED BUSH’S BIT
BY BIT AMNESTY ALONG WITH HER OWN CHAIN MIGRATION WHICH IS CALCULATED TO DOUBLE
THE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS ALREADY HERE.

CLINTON IS ALSO VERY MUCH IN BED WITH THE SAUDIS WHOM GAVE
10 MILLION TO BILL CLINTON’S LIBRARY. NO COMMENT ON THE FACT THE SAUDIS ARE
MAJOR FINANCIERS OF TERRORISM, INCLUDING BOMBERS IN IRAQ KILLING OUR PEOPLE, OR
THE SAUDI FUNDED WAHHABI SCHOOLS WHICH PROMOTE ULTRA-FASCIST MUSLIM IDEOLOGIES.

*

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):

*

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):

*

4. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): As a member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction,
Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which
were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by
Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards
military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's
subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen.
Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process.
Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in
favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline
flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s
investigation into this matter is ongoing.

FEINSTEIN TRADED TWO (BOXER’S) NO IMPEACHMENT PROMISES TO
GEORGE W. BUSH FOR HER PIMP’S ACCESS TO THE CARLYLE BIG BUSH SAUDI OIL WAR
PROFITEERING CLUB. WITH HER FIRST WAR PROFITS CHECK FEINSTEIN WENT OUT AND
PURCHASED A $17 MILLION DOLLAR MANSION IN SAN FRANCISCO. FEINSTEIN RANKS AS ONE
OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICAN HISTORY WHICH MADE HER ATTRACTION
TO BOTH BUSH AND OBAMA OBVIOUS.

FEINSTEIN HAS LONG BEEN ENDORSED BY THE FASCIST MEXICAN
SUPREMACISTPOLITICAL PARTY OF LA RAZA, AND TIRELESSLY WORKS FOR NO AMNESTY, NO
WALL, NO ID FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE, NO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE
EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, AND NO E-VERIFY.

FEINSTEIN HAS LONG ILLEGALLY EXPLOITED “CHEAP” LABOR
ILLEGALS AT HER SAN FRANCISCO HOTEL.

8. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention”
last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In
2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate
deal with an indicted political fund raiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more
reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It
was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased
$50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his
biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that
benefitted from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator
purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting
campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

FEW HAVE TAKEN MORE MONEY FROM WALL STREET BANKSTERS THAN
OBAMA, AND FEW HAVE DONE MORE FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEM FROM PROSECUTION, AND
CONTINUE THE TRANSFER OF THIS ONCE GREAT NATION’S ECONOMY OVER TO THE CORPORATE
CLASS WHICH OWNS HIM.

OBAMA IS A MAJOR HISPANDERER AND HAS PROMISED WALL STREET
AMNESTY FOR 38 MILLION ILLEGALS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND PROFIT MARGINS
SWOLLEN. NO WORD FROM OBAMA ON MEXICAN GANGS MURDERING BLACKS IN COLD BLOOD IN
LOS ANGELES. DO SEARCH LOS ANGELES TIMES.

*

9. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who
promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck
a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water
Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved
renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just
happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and
will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a
result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot
water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and
her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented
request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s
leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which
protects members in both parties from accountability.

PELOSI HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS TO WORK HER 20 MILLION DOLLAR
NAPA WINERY. SHE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN SUNKIST WHICH HAS A POLICY
AGAINST PAYING LIVING WAGES OR HIRING LEGALS. SHE WORKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH THE OTHER
LA RAZA SUPPORTERS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, ESHOO, LOFGREN, SANCHEZ, WAXMAN, KENNEDY,
HARMAN, BACA, HONDA, FONG, BECERRA AND
REID TO KEEP THE BORDERS OPEN. SHE HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY TO SABOTAGE THE WALL TO
PROTECT US FROM NARCO-MEX.

10. SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid
has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his
credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no
different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid
has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore,
clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the
Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign
contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif)
as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the
responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif
Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA
permits, a clear conflict of interest.

ON BEHALF OF HIS BIG GAMBLING BRIBE-STERS, REID WORKS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA LA RAZA GIRLS FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY AND NO LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGAINST ILLEGALS. HIS STATE IS NOW 25% ILLEGAL, AND NEXT TO CALIFORNIA, HAS THE
HIGHEST RATES OF FORECLOSURES.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, CA. Although Boxer did not make the
TOP TEN CORRUPT in 2007,it’s probably
only because there wasn’t enough room. Boxer is as corrupt as they come. She
has used her elected office to collect a staggering fortune labeled “CONSULTANT
FEES”, which she then siphoned off to her son, lawyer DOUGLAS BOXER. Senator
Barbara Boxer voted NO to stop this form of corruption, and keeps herself on
the SENATE’S NO ETHICS COMMITTEE to sabotage any investigations into
FEINSTEIN’S massive corruption. Other politicians that collect special interest
bribes they refer to as “CONSULTANT FEES” are Kennedy and JOE BIDEN who has
collected big money from BIG BANKERS. This made the clown an obvious choice to
be VICE PRESIDENT for OBAMA pandering for more BANKSTERS BRIBES.

*

WHAT DID THE BANKSTERS KNOW ABOUT OUR ACTOR OBAMA THAT WE
DIDN’T KNOW?

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors
are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG
($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

BARACK OBAMA HAS COLLECTED NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS
JOHN McCAIN

BY DAVID SALTONSTALL

DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

July 1st 2008

Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to
Barack Obama. Zurga/Bloomberg

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to
raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have
contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily
News analysis of campaign records shows.

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in
spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim
Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s,
when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary
Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking
sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million
to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

It's a haul that is already raising concerns that, as the
nation's faltering economy has become issue No. 1, the two candidates may have
a hard time playing tough on issues like market regulation or corporate-tax
loopholes.

"No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have
a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for
Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The News.

Wall Street's generosity toward Obama, in particular, would
seem to run counter to its self-interests.

In addition to calling for corporate and capital gains tax
hikes, Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those earning more than
$250,000.

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than
money - winning.

"In general, these are professional
prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money
on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will
win."

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors
are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG
($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS,
MOST OF WHICH TO PAY FOR MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING! NEXT TO DRUGS AND
CRIMINALS, MEXICO’S LARGEST EXPORT IS PREGNANT WOMEN WHO COME TO FOR “FREE”
ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING AND THEN 18 YEARS OF WELFARE. THIS CHILD IS BORN IN OUR
BORDERS IS STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO!

THE
LA RAZA GOV JERRY BROWN, AND THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED A
SLEW OF LAWS AS DICTATED BY ILLEGALS, INCLUDING THAT EMPLOYEES MAY NO LONGER
USE E-VERIFY. WHILE UNEMPLOYMENT IN MEXICO IS UNDER 6%, IN PARTS OF MEXIFORNIA
IT IS JUST UNDER 30%! VIVA LA RAZA? THE DEMS DO!

LA
RAZA FEINSTEIN, BOXER AND PELOSI HAVE ALL PUSHED FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NO
E-VERIFY, NO WALL WITH NARCOmex, AND CERTAINLY NO I.D. REQUIRED FOR ILLEGALS TO
VOTE! OBAMA’S LA RAZA DEPT. of JUSTICE IS WORKING ON THAT NOW, JUST AS THEY SUE
FOUR AMERICAN STATES TO EXPAND OBAMA’S LA RAZA SUPREMACY, AND AGENDA FOR OPEN
BORDERS.

*

REALLY
WANT A JOB? REALLY WANT TO STOP PAYING FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN OUR
BORDERS? REALLY NEED A HAND WITH THOSE STAGGERING MEDICAL COST, BUT CAN’T PAY A
HOSPITAL $80 FOR AN ASPIRIN, SO THEY CAN PAY FOR LA RAZA’S “FREE” MEDICAL,
REALLY WANT TO LIVE IN A STATE WHERE MEXICAN GANGS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF HALF
THE MURDERS???

THEN
DON’T VOTE FOR OBAMA!

*

New studies show growth of poverty, class tensions in US

By Kate Randall

14 January 2012

Two new studies document the
growth of poverty in America and heightened awareness of the social tensions
arising from the conflict between the rich and poor. Both deal with the impact
of the recession and reflect rapid changes in both the economic conditions and
consciousness of wide layers of the population.

“At Risk: America’s Poor
During and After the Great Recession,” published by the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington, focuses on the growth
of poverty as a result of the economic downturn, and the performance of the US
“safety net” in response.

The Pew Research Center
survey, “Rising Share of Americans See Conflict Between Rich and Poor,” reveals
that “the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national
consciousness,” and that increasing numbers say there are “very strong
conflicts” between the wealthy and those at the bottom.

The Indiana University study
shows how the extended duration and severity of the economic downturn has
“inflicted long-lasting damage to individuals, families, and communities.” In
particular, the authors point to the growth of the “near poor” and “new poor”
as a result of the recession.

The study cites long-term
unemployment as one of the major factors contributing to the growth of poverty.
Over 4 million Americans report that they have been unemployed for more than 12
months—the largest number since records were first kept in 1948. If the
long-term jobless lose their unemployment benefits before the economy turns around,
the study warns, the ranks of the so-called new poor will swell between now and
2017.

The authors note that the
growing ranks of the newly poor come under conditions where large numbers of
Americans are already impoverished. According to official government measures,
46.2 million Americans—about 15 percent of the population—were living in
poverty in 2010. This number rises to about 16 percent when using a new
“Supplemental Measure,” which accounts for shortcomings in the official
measurement.

While economists designate
June 2009 as the official end of the recession, the Indiana University study
notes that the number of people living in poverty is still expected to rise,
due to the slow pace of the recovery. Between the years 2006 and 2010 the
proportion of people living in poverty has increased by a staggering 27
percent, a trend that is highly likely to continue. This recent increase in
poverty has hit young people between the ages of 18 and 34 particularly hard.

The performance of the
American “safety net” under these economic conditions has been inadequate and
uneven. So-called entitlement programs, including food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid
and Unemployment Insurance, which operate with mandatory (if insufficient)
funding, have been more responsive as jobs are lost and incomes fall.

By contrast, programs such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaced traditional
welfare beginning in 1996, and federal housing assistance have lagged behind
need. The study notes that moves under way in Congress to cut the federal
budget deficit are likely to result in significant cutbacks to these programs.

Initiatives such as the 2009
federal stimulus package, which somewhat cushioned the blow of poverty in the
recession, are also unlikely to be renewed. Additionally, while poverty
continues to deepen, many cash-strapped states are making cuts to programs such
as unemployment insurance, temporary cash assistance, Medicaid, TANF and other
services for low-income individuals and families.

The Pew Research Center
Survey finds that the growth of poverty and the inability of federal and state
programs to respond to it are having a dramatic impact on the way wide layers
of American society view growing social inequality.

The study of 2,048 adults
found that about two-thirds of Americans (66 percent) believe that there are
either “strong” or “very strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor. This
is an increase of 19 percentage points over views studied in 2009. Three in ten
Americans, or 30 percent, now feel that there are “very strong conflicts”
between rich and poor—double the proportion compared to 2009, and the largest
percentage holding this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.

When evaluating the divisions
within US society, survey respondents ranked the conflicts between rich and
poor ahead of three other potential sources of tensions: between immigrants and
native born, between blacks and whites, and between young and old. In a 2009
survey, respondents cited the tensions between immigrants and native born as
the greatest source of conflicts.

The perception that class
conflict was the leading source of tension was held across virtually all
demographic groups, with younger adults, women, Democrats and African Americans
somewhat more likely to hold this view.

The Pew researchers note that
this dramatic change in attitudes “may reflect the income and wealth inequality
message conveyed by Occupy Wall Street protesters across the country in late
2011 that led to a spike in media attention to the topic.” The study points to
growing public awareness of the shift in wealth distribution in America that
was reflected in the Occupy movement and popular sympathy for the protests.

The authors cite US Census
Bureau data showing that the proportion of overall wealth—a measure including
home equity, stocks and bonds, and other personal possessions—held by the top
10 percent of the population increased from 49 percent in 2005 to 56 percent in
2009, a 7 percent rise in just four years.

The Pew survey, alongside the
data on poverty presented in the Indiana University study, indicates how such
indices of social inequality are finding expression in the sentiments of wider
layers of the US population as this economic turmoil deepens and persists.

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

In
his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe
Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal
immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a
Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s
vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when
they’re built on illegal immigration.

*

“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

WE
ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE, JOBS, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, AND JAILS PLAN!
FOR THIS THE MEXICAN WAVE THEIR COUNTRY’S FLAGS IN OUR FACES, SPEAK ONLY
SPANISH, AND LOOT OUR NATION!

“Such rhetoric would be more convincing if
Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of
their 106 million people who live in poverty.”

*

“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE MONITOR

from
the March 30, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT
UPLIFT THEM

At
this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US
actions.

By
George W. Grayson

WILLIAMSBURG,
VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún,
Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his
countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional
visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of
guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants
who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the
Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of
a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and
legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state
of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández
Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America,
recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon"
of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but
with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility."

Such rhetoric would be more convincing if
Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of
their 106 million people who live in poverty.

To his credit, Fox's
"Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest
of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures
that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb
unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's
leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they
shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US
senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border
and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of
responsibility? · When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent
of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly
equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American
nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal
regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread
evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient
revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of
social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare
only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. · A
venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes
to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in
the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector
estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra
official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes
totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. · Transparency
International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with
Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for
corruption. · Economic competition is constrained by the presence of
inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a
small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots -
that control telecommunications, television, food processing,
transportation, construction, and cement.

THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARE IN THE HANDS OF CARLOS SLIM, A MEX WITH 70 BILLION! SLIM
IS NOW THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, AND OWNS 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. IF YOU
GET THE TIMES, YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA
PROPAGANDA, DAILY COMING OUT WITH EDITORIALS THAT SUPPORT LA RAZA SUPREMACY,
AND NEVER, EVER, EVER AN ARTICLE OF MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE, THE LA RAZA
WELFARE STATE, OR MEXICAN RACISM!

Politicians
who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a
snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian
concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not
the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed
to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful
wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist
that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and
Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.

*

“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION = Poverty FOR AMERICANS

FIRST WE ARE FORCED TO HAND OVER OUR JOBS TO LA RAZA (OBAMA’S SEC. OF
(ILLEGAL) LABOR IS A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS. HER JOB IS TO BUY THE
ILLEGALS VOTES WITH OUR JOBS!), THEN WE GET THE STAGGERING BILLS FOR THE LA
RAZA WELFARE STATE, AND THEN WE’RE TOLD TO PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH! VIVA LA RAZA?

*

By
Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006

This
paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis
on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of
immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also
has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic
effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results.
These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration
is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes
immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the
fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education
level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the
government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By
contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain
on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal
immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition,
recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which
increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators
Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10
million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these
individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government
of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further,
once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his
parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The
long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients
of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the
Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare
state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years,
immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a
second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that
transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an
estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one
person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in
eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal
aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in
the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S.
population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the
U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all
foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans
in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine
percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in
the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of
the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally
perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case.
Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly
more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some
56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable
age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably
higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant
Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen
relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants
have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S.
population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time
of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s
immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration
surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new
immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34
percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels,
illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of
recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants
from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the
median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was
54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general
population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have
risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For
example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their
relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during
their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up
effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw
their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare
Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs
provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to
low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income
credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to
receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years,
this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of
immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the
late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive
means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear
to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the
more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of
immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels.
Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the
late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested
benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for
immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic
differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among
first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The
relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for
current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of
illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1)
Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use.
Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic
groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental
Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more
likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families
that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for
Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater
probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family
means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per
family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of
welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family
structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given
permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely
assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in
the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a
whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general,
immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than
native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to
use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill
immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by
looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As
Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and
unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born
individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving
amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a
high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree
are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal
immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare
than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less
likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are
ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’
welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar
education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew
Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently
live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While
children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children
in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of
child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low
education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage
among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born
out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is
42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic
whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than
for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has
remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33]
These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal
aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and
raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than
children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are
also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to
have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in
crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who
are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of
all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born
adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One
important question is the future economic status of the children and
grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in
the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may
obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational
attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of
current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans
currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants
are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70
percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked
a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals
born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation
Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent
born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well
short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation
Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school
drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among
blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans
(those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little
relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans
are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among
second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about
two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance
does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the
offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of
educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the
non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high
rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty
and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant
populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For
example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was
slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among
Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per
100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among
Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher
than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference
appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are
overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and
their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the
low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to
occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence
through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in
the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the
fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure
that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the
welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help
immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants
should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the
cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an
individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and
private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate
new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are
national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of
immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to
the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of
these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private
goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits,
Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible”
goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the
population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection,
roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand
as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service.
An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid
exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his
family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of
immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of
foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and
California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of
first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However,
when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were
counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure
from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the
average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five
important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in
the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study
applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the
finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to
the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone.
Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and
benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the
study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing
among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and
limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational
attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of
immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems
unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent
Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is
highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even
exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We
cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from
now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will
eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a
positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar
methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to
have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are
projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by
NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time
horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4
percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to
$8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases
and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from
rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future
generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and
benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of
immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do
occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on
the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the
estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little
bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily
low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a
high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants
bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs¼
[I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with
little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the
long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the
education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some
college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high
school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of
immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will
exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of
immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed
earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the
calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that
low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill
workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of
native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare
expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications
could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments
currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare
benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits
but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition,
native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible
for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens
would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and
taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also
increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on
the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt
of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant
households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be
considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough
study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that
illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and
currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower
levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that,
on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than
they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants
eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional
taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur
as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment
among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among
legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic
backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax
payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and
social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare
benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year
total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of
granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around
$5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per
year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family
members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas
for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

ONE
QUARTER OF CONGRESS!!!!!!! IS NOW THE HISPANIC CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS!!!!!! THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! MEXIFORNIA SENDS FOUR LA RAZA FASCIST TO CONGRESS.
THEY ARE RABIDLY RACIST SUPREMACIST REPS. JOE BACA, XAVIER BECERRA, SISTERS
LINDA AND LORETTA SANCHEZ. OBAMA’S LA RAZA SEC. OF (ILLEGAL) LABOR IS FORMER
CONGRESSWOMAN HILDA SOLIS. ALL PUT IN OFFICE BY THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!!!!!

HERE’S
AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR PRO-LA RAZA – GRINGOS PAY AGENDA:

Reps. Nydia
Velazquez
(D-N.Y.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) wrote President
Obama last month on behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, calling on the
White House to terminate the program.

Yesterday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) held
a mass rally on the Capitol's West Lawn to present the outline of his new mass
amnesty / weak enforcement bill. Of course, his proposed legislation includes a
path to citizenship for most of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S.
Earlier this year, Gutierrez barnstormed the country, speaking to dozens of
churches, arguing for more immigration and amnesty.

According to Gutierrez, granting amnesty to illegal aliens is the righteous,
merciful, and just thing to do. To hear
it from Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!

What about America's tens of millions of unemployed, who must compete with
illegal aliens for jobs and scarce social services? Where's the compassion for
these people? Hundreds of NumbersUSA members have written to me recently
telling me they've been laid off. Anyone care about them?

*

“To hear it from
Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!”

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

In his first state of the union speech since becoming
president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its
efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed
that “Mexico does not end at its
borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.”

*

“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast
majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country
saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development
of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while
foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace
discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino
works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding
Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”

*

“The increase in the number living in poverty, and falling
incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast to the continued rise in
incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall Street bankers and financial
traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The Census Bureau figures provide
one more indication of the enormous social tensions building up within the
United States.”

*

“It is
clear that far from seeking to reign in executive pay, the Obama administration
has done everything in its power to defend the exorbitant compensation of the
Wall Street CEOs.”

*

Wsws.org… get on their free daily email news

US poverty rate hits 11-year high

By Shannon Jones
11 September 2009

Poverty in the United States
climbed to 13.2 percent in 2008, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, the highest
level since 1997. The increase came as millions of workers lost their jobs in
the first year of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.
Meanwhile, median household income hit its lowest level since 1997, while the
number of people without health insurance rose. The data was contained in the
Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey released on Thursday.

In 2008, 39.8 million people
were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007. The government defines
poverty as a family of four with an annual income of less than $22,025. By this
measure, the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 rose from 18 percent
in 2007 to 19 percent in 2009. There were 14.1 million children living in
poverty in 2008. The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent in 2008, with 8.1
million families in poverty. As the government’s official poverty threshold is
woefully low, these figures drastically understate the true picture.

The US Midwest and West
showed increases in both the poverty rate and the number living in poverty. The
Midwest, hard hit by job losses in manufacturing, saw an increase in the
poverty rate to 12.4 percent in 2008, up from 11.1 percent in 2007, an increase
of 900,000 people living in poverty. The poverty rate in the West, battered by
the collapse of the housing bubble, rose from 12 percent to 13.5 percent, an
increase of 1.2 million additional people.

The poverty rate for whites
rose to 8.6 percent, up from 8.2 percent in 2007. Poverty among Hispanics rose
to 23.2 percent, up from 21.5 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, poverty among African
American remained unchanged at 24.7 percent. According to the report, 31
percent of Americans fell into poverty for at least two months between 2004 and
2007. In 2008, 17.1 million people had income below one-half of their poverty
threshold, in other words were living in extreme poverty. Of this number, 36.8
percent were children.

According to the report,
median household income fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008. The drop in
median income was the largest annual decline since 1991, and means that in
inflation adjusted dollars median income stands lower than in 1998. This is the
first time in the 40 years that the Census Bureau has tracked household income
that there has been a 10-year period in which median income did not increase.
In all likelihood this is the first such decline since the Depression decade of
the 1930s, as the 1940s and 1950s generally saw rising incomes.

The largest drop in income,
5.4 percent, occurred among wage earners in the 45 to 54 year age-range. The
second greatest decline, 3.9 percent, came for workers in the 55-64 age
bracket.

While the percentage of
people without health coverage remained unchanged in 2008, the number of
uninsured increased to 46.3 million, up from 45.7 million in 2008. Among
children under the age of 18, 15.9 percent lacked health coverage. The number
of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 177.4 million
to 176.3 million, reflecting the impact of job losses and employers dropping
health coverage for employees. For the eighth straight year, 2008 saw a drop
the percentage of people covered by employer-based health insurance.

Meanwhile, the number covered
by government-based health insurance rose from 83 million to 87.4 million, as a
number of states expanded Medicaid and health insurance programs for children.

Texas had the highest rate of
uninsured, a staggering 25 percent, up from 24.1 percent in 2007. New Mexico
came in second with an uninsured rate of 23 percent. California had the largest
number of uninsured, with 6.7 million people lacking coverage.

These figures present a pale
reflection of the present situation, since they do not reflect the impact of
continuing mass layoffs and cuts in social services. Based on the continuing
job losses, the real number of uninsured is probably closer to 50 million, the
figure used by the Congressional Budget Office.

The official unemployment
rate in August stood at 9.7 percent. Some 7 million people have lost their jobs
since the start of the recession, 3.8 million so far this year, and the toll is
growing.

An economist with the
Economic Policy Institute told Reuters that by their estimate “a quarter of all
children in this country will be living in poverty” by the end of this year.

The increase in the number
living in poverty, and falling incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast
to the continued rise in incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall
Street bankers and financial traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The
Census Bureau figures provide one more indication of the enormous social
tensions building up within the United States.

*

VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CRIMINAL BANKSTERS ARE OBAMA DONORS, OR
WORK OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!

*

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than
money - winning.

"In general, these are professional
prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money
on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will
win."

Records show that
four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry
giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).

*

CEOs at bailed out banks got $13.8 million apiece last year

By Andre Damon
7 September 2009

Executives at financial
firms bailed out by the government received on average $13.8 million in compensation
last year, according to a study of bank earning statements released last week.

This figure is 37 percent higher than the average CEO income in the S&P
500, which stood at $10.1 million last year. The study found that CEOs stand to
benefit even further after their companies granted them stock options at their
low points in early 2009.

The study, published Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a
liberal think tank, gave a comprehensive overview of Wall Street firms’ pay
practices based on their proxy earnings statements to the SEC.

The report noted that the average financial CEO’s salary in 2008 was 430
times what an average worker earned during the same time.

The top five executives at the 20 financial firms that got the most money
from the federal government collected a total of $3.2 billion in compensation
in the past three years. During this time, these 100 people took in an average
of $32 million apiece. This group received $1.2 billion in 2006 and 2007, and
$0.8 billion last year.

100 US workers would have to work for a thousand years to make as much as
this group made in three.

The report notes that “Executive pay at top US financial firms stands poised
for spectacularly rapid recovery.” Many Wall Street firms gave executives large
quantities of stock options in the beginning of the year, when stocks were at
bottom prices. But as a result of the bailout and the Obama administration’s
continued guarantees that it would compensate banks for any losses they incur,
these stocks have drastically shot up in value.

Half of the top 20 firms receiving bailouts have already reported the
details and valuations of stock options given earlier this year. The top five
executives at each of these firms had the value of their stock options increase
by a total of $90 million. Executives at JPMorgan Chase had their options grow
by $20.6 million, followed by American Express and PNC, each of whose
executives had their options grow by $17.9 million. If the rally continues,
these people stand to earn far more.

Sarah Anderson, the report’s author, told Newsweek, “I think the
most shocking thing was looking at how executives could use the financial
crisis as a springboard to an even bigger windfall this year. Rather than hand
out bonuses, many companies gave out new stock options. For example, the stock
options of American Express’s CEO increased by $18 million, but the stock price
of the company was about half since the economic crash. I think this shows that
executives come out on top no matter what.”

Executive bonuses are expected to increase by 25 percent this year,
according to the Wall Street Journal. Goldman Sachs alone has already allocated
$11 billion for employee compensation in the first part of the 2009.

“The federal government has, to this point, not moved forward into law or
regulation any measure that would actually deflate the executive pay bubble
that has expanded so hugely over the last three decades,” the study concluded.

This is a striking admission, but one that is absolutely true. For all its
talk of reigning in executive compensation, the Obama Administration has taken
no concrete measures to reduce the actual quantity of funds doled out to
executives.

The closest thing to such a measure has been the appointment of Kenneth
Feinberg to approve the pay packages of firms receiving some forms of
government aid. Feinberg has the power to vote up or down the pay packages for
the top 100 employees at these companies. But this limited oversight applies
only for companies that still owe the US government money from the Troubled
Asset Relief Program.

So far, eight of the top 20 receivers of government funds have paid back
their TARP obligations, freeing themselves from any pay oversight. In any case,
Feinberg has already approved “in principle” multi-million-dollar bonuses at
failed insurer AIG. Feinberg is expected to release the results of his
investigation later this month.

In another toothless measure, Congress has mandated that large financial
firms conduct non-binding shareholder votes on executive pay packages.

The response from the media has been a mixture of feigned outrage and
cynical acceptance. David Weidner wrote in a Wall Street Journal
column Thursday, “It’s futile to try and eliminate risk-taking and big rewards
on Wall Street. Greed is the nature of the business. Capping Wall Street pay is
like telling Apple Inc. to be less innovative or Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to go
easy on the discounts.” Instead, he argues that CEO pay should be better
aligned with their companies’ interests.

This has been the nominal line of the Obama administration, which has on
principle rejected any comprehensive restraints on CEO pay. At the G20 finance
ministers’ meeting, which concluded talks on Saturday, France and Germany
sought to create some sort of global oversight for pay in the financial
industry, but US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner rejected any such approach,
calling instead for token regulations on the amount of capital that banks are
required to hold.

It is clear that far from seeking to reign in executive pay, the Obama
administration has done everything in its power to defend the exorbitant
compensation of the Wall Street CEOs.

*

L.A.County's $48 Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab

Last Updated: Wed, 08/12/2009
- 11:24am

Taxpayers
in the nation’s most populous county dished out nearly $50 million in a single
month to cover only the welfare costs of illegal immigrants, representing a
whopping $10 million increase over the same one-month period two years
ago.

In
June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food
stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public
services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual
tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county.

The
figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant cost of educating, medically
treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10
million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for
those combined services, including $400 million for healthcare and $350 million
for public safety.

The
recent single-month welfare figure was obtained from the county’s Department of
Social Services and made public by a county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who
assures illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los
Angeles County taxpayers.” The veteran lawmaker points out that 24% of the county’s
total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the
children of illegal aliens—known as anchor babies—born in the United States.

A
former fifth-grade history teacher who has served on the county’s board for
nearly three decades, Antonovich has repeatedly come under fire for publicizing
statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the
region. Antonovich represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the
size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.

Numerous other reports have
documented the enormous cost of illegal immigration on a national level. Just
last year a renowned economist, who has thoroughly researched the impact of
illegal immigration, published a book breaking down the country’s $346 billion annual cost to
educate, jail, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens throughout the
U.S.

*

WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN
OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN L.A. COUNTY OVER $48 MILLION IN JUNE

August 11, 2009—Figures from the
Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in
Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million
in food stamps in June, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D.
Antonovich. Projected over a 12 month period – this would exceed $575
million dollars.

Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers
exceeds over $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety,
$400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps
allocations. Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of
welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens
born in the United States.

“Illegal immigration continues to have a catastrophic impact on Los Angeles
County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “The total cost for illegal
immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the
millions of dollars for education.”

IF YOU CALL REP. HENRY WAXMAN’S OFFICE AND
ASK THEM WHAT HIS POSITION IS ON ILLEGALS AND THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION, HIS
OFFICE VOLUNTEERS STAMMER THEN GO DUMB. NO WONDER LA RAZA ENDORSES HENRY
WAXMAN.

*

THE MEXICAN LOOTER’S MENTALITY

“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to
remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a
"looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share
in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.”
In my former INS experience, it was not uncommon for the illegal aliens I
arrested to make it clear that they were here for one purpose: to make as much
money as possible as quickly as possible and send it all home. I know that many
aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the
United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful
immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation. Part of
the problem is that the relationship that businesses have with the United States
is one of greed. These companies couldn't care less about the damage that they
do to this country or the average working American. They are happy to exploit
the illegal aliens and in so doing, get a lucrative piece of the action. And
the bankers and money wire services like Western Union have become the silent
partners of the illegal aliens. Of course, if the American dollar plummets far
enough many illegal aliens will probably just head home, leaving this country
in financial disarray. But when you read about the amounts of money being sent
out of the United States that is lost to our economy, you must realize that the
money you are reading about is not being earned by Americans or by lawful
immigrants, because they have been displaced by illegal aliens who are willing
to work for substandard wages. Unfortunately, Congress has just passed what has
been billed as an "Economic Stimulus Package." This bill will
undoubtedly be signed into law by the President and will call for taxpayers to
be mailed one-time rebate checks that (it is hoped) will be used to spend on
consumer goods that – get this – for the most part are not even produced in the
United States. A large part of the problem we are having right now is that
Americans are not saving enough money. Our citizens have been cashing in the
value of their homes with second mortgages and huge credit card debts and now,
the value of most of those houses has fallen into the basement! There is an
utter lack of fiscal responsibility in abundant evidence in Washington and around
kitchen tables across the United States and meanwhile, the front runners in the
Presidential elections are eager to provide amnesty and thus more incentives
for still more illegal aliens to drain still more money out of our economy.
They will do this through remittances and other means of sending money back
home. They will do this when they show up in the emergency rooms of hospitals
across our nation demanding medical treatment without medical insurance. The
criminal element of this massive influx of illegal aliens will injure and kill
more victims in our country, destroying lives and the lives of family members
of the victims of those crimes. Some of the crimes will also result in property
losses and in fraud.

*

Identity theft is the fastest growing white collar crime in
America today and is often motivated by organized rings that sell these stolen
identities to illegal aliens seeking illegal employment.

*

The Congressional Budget Office
has recently done a study that concludes that contrary to the assertions of the
open borders / pro-amnesty crowd, illegal aliens represent a net drain on the
economy. Finally, the attacks of September 11, 2001, in addition to the death
and destruction they wrought, hammered our economy and the economies of other
countries. Trade suffered, travel and tourism suffered – yet the travel and
hospitality industries are pushing a program known as "Discover
America" wherein they are attempting to have the United States government
expand the Visa Waiver Program beyond the current 27 participating countries to
as many as 39 countries. In the end, the United States and its working poor and
middle class that is shouldering the greatest burden of the open borders and
cash movement mess. Interestingly, with all of the interviews that were
conducted in the article linked above, not a single interview was conducted to
find out what the impact of the decline of the dollar has had on the average
American family.

*

“U.S. efforts to find and deport illegal immigrants are overwhelmed by sheer
numbers and hampered by public agencies working at cross-purposes. The $2
billion spent each year has little measurable effect on either crime or
immigration. Most people deported say they intend to return to the U.S. – and
many do. Criminals have less trouble returning than most.”

*

Illegals Receiving Health Care …."But....( of course there is!)"

“If you’re in this
country illegally, should you be able to get health care?” CNN’s John King
asked Mrs. Pelosi.

These loopholes, Rep. Smith maintains, are “no accident.” He maintains that the
proposed legislation, despite months of debate, still contains no mechanism for
verifying if applicants are legal residents or not.

The Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee attempted to address
this loophole by an amendment proposed by Congressman Dick Heller (R-Nevada)
which would have required applicants for government provided or subsidized
health care to demonstrate eligibility through the Income and Eligibility
Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) systems.

The Federal for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) believes the legislation is
now purposefully self-contradictory in order to ensure that the millions of
illegal Latinos will receive coverage. FAIR points out that while one provision
of the proposed health care reform bill states illegal immigrants will not be
eligible for benefits, the legislation remains without any system of
verification for determining if a patient is a legal or illegal U. S. resident.

Moreover, Fair insists, the bill leaves open the possibility that if one
citizen family member is eligible for benefits, then the entire family —
including illegal immigrants — is also eligible for the benefits.

“At a time when the federal government is running trillion dollar deficits, and
the projected costs of the proposed health care overhaul seem to grow with each
passing day, the committee that writes our tax laws wants Americans to pay for
the health care costs of illegal aliens,” says FAIR President Dan Stein. “Given
the opportunity to close loopholes that would cost the public billions of
dollars each year, Democrats on the committee unanimously rejected an amendment
that would bar illegal aliens from a national health care program.”

The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year,
according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration
Reform (FAIR), a non-profit group that opposes illegal immigration. And that
cost is not expected to go away if a health insurance reform bill becomes law.

According to FAIR’s Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, illegal
immigrants presently cost U. S. taxpayers $10.7 billion a year for health care.
The numbers are contained in a report that FAIR plans to publish in the near
future.

“The current health care bill is looking as if it is leaving a very large
loophole for medical coverage being provided to illegal aliens,” Martin said.

So again, yes, the speaker of the House can say: "We've made no provision
for Health Care for Illegal Aliens". But, is she in fact telling you the
WHOLE truth or only half a truth. I am an independent voter and I, at this
point, have my opinion. You be the judge for your own opinion.

*

The politics of Healthcare Reform

from the AP -

"Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National
Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or
local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check
the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money
distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal
aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a preference
for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.

That's right. Lawabiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't
submit to the ObamaCare prescription.

Lawbreaking bordercrossers and deportation fugitives would be spared.

For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegals
aren't getting free health care, and that even if they were, they'd not be
draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those
talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and
Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the
prohibitive costs of providing nonemergency health services for illegals.

"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department
across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk of
the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the
AP."

*

DO
YOU THINK LA RAZA’S SUPREMACY HAS WANED SINCE THESE WERE PUBLISHED?

FAIR Legislative Update December 22, 2009

Radical Amnesty Bill Introduced in House

On Tuesday, December 15, open borders advocate Luis
Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced H.R. 4321, the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform
for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009,” (CIR ASAP). H.R. 4321 would
grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, dramatically increase legal
immigration, and create loopholes in existing penalties in exchange for
promises of “enforcement” in the future. (See FAIR’s Legislative Updates from
October 19, 2009 and December 14, 2009). At introduction, CIR ASAP had over 90
original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. (See Cosponsor listing).

CIR ASAP contains several amnesty programs, including AgJOBS
(Title IV, Subtitle B); the DREAM Act (sprinkled throughout the bill); and a
broad amnesty program through which millions of illegal aliens could obtain
“earned legalization” (Title IV, Subtitle A). These provisions are in many ways
similar to those in the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill of 2007, except that several
significant requirements have been weakened. For example, for an illegal alien
to receive amnesty under H.R.4321, he or she does not even have to establish
employment, only that he or she is an active member of the community.

•Recapturing
purportedly “unused” family and employment-based green cards from 1992 to 2008
(§301(a)-(b)). According to State Department data, this provision alone could
bring in as many as 550,000 immigrants—all of whom would compete with American
workers for jobs. (U.S. State Department, Unused Family and Employment
Preferences Numbers Available for Recapture, Fiscal Years 1992-2007).

•Expanding
the definition of “immediate relatives” to include children and spouses of
lawful permanent residents. (§302). This would allow an unlimited number of
these children and spouses to immediately qualify for a visa.

•Increasing
the annual per country limits on family and employment-based visas from seven percent
to ten percent. (§303). Under current law, each foreign country has a seven
percent share of the total cap of visas allocated each year.

In exchange for the multiple amnesties and massive increases
in legal immigration proposed in the bill, H.R. 4321 contains measures
ostensibly aimed at strengthening immigration “enforcement.” Upon closer
examination, however, CIR ASAP would actually undermine the enforcement of our
immigration laws. For example, the bill would:

•Repeal the
highly successful 287(g) program, which allows federal officials to train state
and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration
laws. (§184).

•Establish a
new, untested electronic employee verification system. (§201). This would
completely reverse years of progress made with respect to E-Verify.

•Temporarily
suspend Operation Streamline pending a re-evaluation of the program’s future
viability. (§125(a)). Operation Streamline is a highly successful,
zero-tolerance program that targets illegal aliens for immediate prosecution
upon apprehension at or near the border. After Operation Streamline was put
into effect in December 2006, the Yuma, Arizona sector saw nearly 1200
prosecutions in the first 9 months. Border apprehensions decreased by 70
percent. (CBP Press Release, July 24, 2007).

•Prohibit
the Armed Forces and the National Guard from assisting in securing the border
unless: (1) the President declares a national emergency, or (2) the use of the
Armed Forces/National Guard is required for specific counter-terrorism duties.
(§131(a) & (b)).

•Require the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify and inventory the current
personnel, human resources, assets, equipment, supplies, or other physical
resources dedicated to border security and enforcement prior to any increase in
these categories. (§114(a); §116(a)).

At a press conference announcing the introduction of his
bill, Rep. Gutierrez indicated that his bill was to set the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus’s standard for immigration reform legislation. However, he also
acknowledged that the Senate will most likely be the first chamber to act on
amnesty legislation. While a bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate,
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is planning to introduce a bill in early 2010, and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated he will kick off the
amnesty debate sometime in February or March. (Congressional Quarterly,
December 15, 2009).

FAIR will be releasing a more detailed summary of the
Gutierrez amnesty bill shortly. Stay tuned for our in-depth analysis.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, October 22, 2009

The federal government has declared war on Sheriff JOE
ARPAIO of Maricopa County, Arizona, for enforcing our nation’s immigration
laws. “America’s Toughest Sheriff” will give Lou an update.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Friday, October 16, 2009

E-Verify- the single most successful federal program aimed
at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce- is once again threatened.
This time, E-Verify was stripped from a Senate Amendment behind closed doors
and without explanation. Instead of becoming a permanent program E-verify has
been reduced to only three years. Critics are calling this a stall tactic and
an attempt at killing an employment enforcement system. We will have a full
report tonight.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, October 15, 2009

E-Verify -- the single most successful federal program aimed
at keeping illegal immigrants out of the nation's workforce is once again being
threatened. Permanent reauthorization for the program -- which has a
99.7-percent accuracy rate -- has been pulled from pending legislation. Now the
program is set to expire in just 3-years. The change was made behind closed
doors in the Senate -- without public comment or debate.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New attempts to put comprehensive immigration reform back on
the front burner. Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- the chair of the Democratic
Caucus Immigration Task Force -- is unveiling new legislation that would call
for amnesty for the up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.

Congressman Gutierrez will join me tonight

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Obama
administration could be weakening a successful joint federal and local program
aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off our streets. "287 G" gives
local police the training and authority to enforce federal immigration law.
Supporters of the program believe the ministration wants to limit the program
to criminal illegal immigrants already in custody -- limiting the investigative
authority of police.

And Father PATRICK BASCIO has a remarkably different
perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen-one
he’s outlined in a remarkable new book entitled

On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration: An Alternative
Christian View.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol
Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents
from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss
the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is
headed. Call him toll-free on the Independent Hotline at 877-55 DOBBS.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Federal contractors now must use E-verify to check the
status of their employees on federal projects. The rule which goes into effect
today will affect almost 169,000 contractors and some 3.8 million workers. The
E-verify program has an accuracy rating of 99.6% but has been repeatedly
challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Congress. We will have a full report tonight.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country:
That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps.
These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute
drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why
those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced
legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Senator Ted Kennedy kicked off a week of events and meetings
focusing on immigration before he introduces legislation promoting amnesty for
millions of illegal aliens living in the United States. Today, Kennedy met with
Cardinal Roger Mahony, an outspoken and controversial supporter of illegal
aliens and Kennedy’s bill. Senators McCain, Kennedy and Representatives

Flake and Gutierrez are expected to unveil their legislation
later this month. We’ll have a full report.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Another victory for American workers in Arizona. Yesterday,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the get-tough employer sanctions law
in the state. The law hits employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens with
strict penalties and in some cases even strips businesses of their licenses. A
lower court upheld the same law in February. But open-borders and amnesty
groups along with the business lobby are considering yet another appeal.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has
adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary
zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its
rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral
arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their
enforcement." We’ll have the story.

Last year, Prince William County, Virginia passed an
initiative to allow local police to check the immigration status of anyone in
police custody. The county recently held its first immigration training session
for local police officers. We’ll have a look inside the training.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in New York today on
the first leg his five day tour across America to meddle in immigration issues
in the United States. This is his first visit to the U.S. since he became
President in 2006, but he will not meet with President Bush or any of the
presidential candidates, who he has accused of spewing anti immigrant rhetoric.
Join us for that report.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight Wednesday

March 5, 2008

Immigration experts are appearing on Capitol Hill today to
release the results of a study showing the cost of illegal immigration on the
criminal justices system in the 24 U.S. counties bordering Mexico–more $1
billion in less than a decade.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger said California is facing “financial
Armageddon”. He is making drastic cuts in the budget for education, health care
and services. But there is one place he isn’t making cuts… services for illegal
immigrants. These services are estimated to cost the state four to five billion
dollars a year. Schwarzenegger said he is “happy” to offer these services. We
will have a full report tonight.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Plus drug cartel
violence is spreading across our border with Mexico further into the United
States. Mexican drug cartels are increasingly being linked to crimes in this
country. Joining Lou tonight, from our border with Mexico is the new “border
czar” Alan Bersin, the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, April 20, 2009

And compelling new evidence that H-1B visas for foreign
workers lower the pay of information technology workers in this country.
Critics say the report, by NYU’s Stern School of Business and Pennsylvania’s
Wharton School, proves that corporate elites are importing cheap overseas labor
simply to lower the wages of American workers. We’ll have a special report.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Plus, outrage after
President Obama prepares to push ahead with his plan for so-called comprehensive
immigration reform. Pres. Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise to give

legal status to millions of illegal aliens as he panders to
the pro-amnesty, open borders lobby. Tonight we will have complete coverage.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 16, 2009

Construction of the 670 miles of border fence mandated by
the Bush administration is almost complete. The Border Patrol says the new
fencing, more agents and new technology

have reduced illegal alien apprehensions. But fence opponents
are trying to stop the last few miles from being finished. We will have a full
report, tonight.

Plus, even open
border advocates agree that the most effective way of fighting illegal
immigration is to crack down on the employment of illegal aliens. Yet, those
same groups are

opposed to E-Verify, which has an initial accuracy rate of
99.6% making it one the most accurate programs ever. E-Verify was stripped from
the stimulus bill but who stripped it out and who is opposed to verifying
employment status is still not clear.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Friday, October 17, 2008

Tonight, a Supreme Court ruling is putting our democracy at
risk. The court today overturned a federal appeals court decision that would
have forced Ohio to do more to verify questionable voter registrations. We’ll
have the very latest in our special report.

Plus, in the War on the Middle Class tonight, a government
program is found to be rampant with fraud and abuse, giving even more American
jobs to foreign workers. A new Department of Homeland Security report shows
cases of violations, forgery and shell businesses in the H-1B visa program.
We’ll have that and much more.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

In Colorado, over 1,300 illegal aliens are being
investigated for applying for improper tax refunds. The ACLU has written a
letter to the judge threatening to sue if the judge convenes a grand jury to
investigate the case. We will have all the latest developments of the case as
well as the ACLU’s bullying in pursuit of their amnesty agenda.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

And WILLIAM GHEEN, the president of Americans for Legal
Immigration, breaks down his push for E-Verify—and why the Obama administration
is wrong to delay its implementation when it comes to federal contractors.

*

JUDICIAL WATCH.org

REPORT CARD ON BARACK OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY:

With trillion dollar bailouts, government-run healthcare, banks and car
companies, ACORN corruption, attacks on conservative media, illegal alien
amnesty, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for
campaign donors—this is the Obama legacy—and we haven't even gotten through the
first year of his presidency!

Arrests of illegal immigrant
workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures
released Wednesday. Criminal arrests,
administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at
work sites all fell by more than 50
percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made
good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant
workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar
Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of
Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).
Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period
of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting
illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

*

“As economist Philip J.
Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on
legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars.”latimes.com

Opinion

California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants

The state should go after employers who hire them, curb
taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the
border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

*

By Steve Poizner (FORMER CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR)

March 27, 2010

The United States, and
California in particular, has been built by immigrants who legally crossed our
borders in search of a brighter future. For generations, these legal immigrants
have made immeasurable contributions to creating a unique and vibrant
California. As Americans and Californians, we are right to welcome people from
all over the globe when they obey our laws and are willing to play by the
rules.

*

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in
tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained
by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain
that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost
taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal
immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions
of dollars."

Some have said that illegal immigration is an issue for the federal government,
not the states, and that there's little a governor can do to fix the problem.
Those people are wrong.

*

In government at any level, federal or state, a chief executive's duty is to
preserve the rule of law. This also means confronting those who flout it,
including illegal immigrants and those who shield them.

I believe there are many ways our state can stem the flow of illegal
immigration, including social services reform and beefed-up border security.
The state needs to confront the problem in a way that is fair and decent but
also unapologetically aggressive.

(LA
RAZA DEM, GOV JERRY BROWN JUST SIGNED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO
USE E-VERIFY, DESPITE CA’S STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT OF LEGALS!)

Above all, California has too many policies that reward illegal aliens and act
like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities.
We have to change those policies.

Ten
other states, including neighboring Arizona, have passed laws to cut
taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. We need such legislation too.
In this time of fiscal crisis, we can't afford to subsidize the presence of
illegal aliens.

One taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal aliens that should be stopped is in-state
tuition at our public colleges and universities. Today, California is one of
just 10 states that allow illegal immigrants access to reduced college tuition
at taxpayer expense.
California must also do its part to help secure the border by deploying the
state's National Guard to assist federal authorities. We should also work with
other border states to create a multi-state partnership for sharing
information, resources and manpower. (OBAMA HAS NOW SUED FOUR STATES ON BEHALF
OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE!)

*

THE MEXICAN LOOTER’S MENTALITY

“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to
remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a
"looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share
in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.”

*

NOTE
THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE BELOW. SINCE THEN THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE PUT MILLIONS OF
ILLEGALS IN OUR JOBS! IN FACT, LA RAZA JERRY BROWN OF MEXIFORNIA HAS SIGNED A
LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!!

America
faces a greater and more dangerous threat from within than from without. While
our armed forces secure Afghanistan and Iraq, our own borders stand unguarded
24 hours a day. Al-Qaeda insurgents plan their next attacks somewhere inside
our country. They advocate a violent overthrow of America.

We’ve got an even more
ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the
reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of
Mexico. With 9.2 million Mexicans now
living in America, their goal of colonizing our country back into Mexico moves
forward. A more sobering reality stems from the evidence that it’s
Mexican-American citizens in the forefront of this disintegration of our
country.

*

“The inspections have
determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants
on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper
that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At
least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of
workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.”

THE
ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs
taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus.
“President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration.
The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants
find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration
laws.”

*

“The principal beneficiaries of our current
immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard
wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American
workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant
flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

LA RAZA OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA – MUCHO LOOT FOR
WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS… BUT WHO REALLY PAYS, AND WHO VOTED FOR THE LA RAZA
WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS? ILLEGALS!

The California Budget Project, a liberal study
group in Sacramento, brought the income squeeze down to the state level in its
Labor Day analysis.

Using state tax data, the project said that the
average adjusted gross income of all California taxpayers - whether filing
individually or jointly - fell from $82,268 in 2000 to $68,434 in 2008, after
adjusting for inflation.

TOM ABATE SFGATE.com

*

BOOK:

Mexifornia: SHATTERING OF AN AMERICAN DREAM (illegals call it their DREAM
ACT)